Current  misconceptions  about 
the  war. 


ChrwtA 


dDOa 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/currentmisconcepOOvonw 


CURRENT 

MISCONCEPTIONS 

ABOUT  THE  WAR 

Karl  H.  von  Wiegand's  Interview  with  the  Crown  Prince 

What  is  German  '*  Culture"  ? 

Has  the  U.  S.  Guaranteed  Belgian  Neutrality  ? 

Chaos  in  the  Rules  of  War 

The  Contribution  Levied  Against  Brussels 


1915 

THE  FATHERLAND  CORPORATION,  inc. 

1 1 23  Broadway,  New  York 


CROWN   PRINCE  OF  GEkMANY 
INTERVIEWED 

**  Preparation  Was  Our  Duty,"  Declares  Heir  to  Kaiser's 
Throne— Holds  England  Responsible 

BylKARLlH.^VON  WIEGAND 

United  Press  Staff  Correspondent 
{Copyright,  IQ14,  by  United  Press.     Copyright  in  Great  Britain.) 

Headquarters  of  the  Army  of  Crown  Prince  in  France 
{hy  courier  via  Namur,  Aix-la-Chapelle  and  The  Hague  to  London, 
by  cable  to  New  York),  Nov.  20. — ''Undoubtedly  this  is  the 
most  stupid,  senseless  and  unnecessary  war  of  modern  times. 
It  is  a  war  not  wanted  by  Germany,  I  can  assure  you,  but  it 
was  forced  on  us,  and  the  fact  that  we  were  so  effectually  pre- 
pared to  defend  ourselves  is  now  being  used  as  an  argument  to 
convince  the  world  that  we  desired  conflict." 

In  these  words  Frederick  William,  Crown  Prince  of  Germany 
and  heir  to  the  throne  of  the  Kaiser,  opened  the  first  interview 
he  has  ever  given  to  a  foreign  newspaper  man,  and  the  first  direct 
statement  made  to  the  press  by  any  member  of  the  German 
royal  family  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 

I  arrived  at  the  headquarters  of  the  Fifth  German  army  in 
an  automobile,  shortly  before  midnight.  At  daybreak,  I  received 
a  call  from  Major  Edler  von  der  Planitz,  personal  aide  de  camp 
to  the  Crown  Prince,  who  stated  that  his  Imperial  Highness 
wanted  to  welcome  me,  but  that  he  was  leaving  for  the  firing 
line  and  would  see  me  a  little  later  in  the  day. 

When,  some  time  later,  the  Crown  Prince  returned,  I  was 
presented.  He  greeted  me  cordially  and  without  any  of  the 
stiffness  or  cool  reserve  that  might  have  been  expected. 

"I  am  very  pleased  to  see  you  here,"  he  said,  ''and  I  hope 
that  you  will  find  plenty  to  interest  you.  I  want  you  to  feel  at 
liberty  to  go  wherever  you  Hke." 

"  I  hope  your  Imperial  Highness  will  pardon  my  Americanized 
German,"  I  said,  in  stating  to  him  some  of  the  points  in  which 
I  thought  American  readers  would  be  chiefly  interested. 

3 


4        CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

"Then  let  us  talk  English,  if  you  feel  that  we  can  better  thus 
express  ourselves,"  was  his  quick  reply.  Acting  on  the  sug- 
gestion the  Crown  Prince  of  Germany  proceeded  to  give  his  first 
interview  in  EngUsh. 

An  Uncalled-for  War 

"I  am  a  soldier,  and  therefore  cannot  discuss  pohtics,"  said 
the  Crown  Prince,  "but  it  seems  to  me  that  this  whole  business, 
all  of  this  action  that  you  see  around  here,  is  senseless,  un- 
necessary and  uncalled  for.  But  Germany  was  left  no  choice 
in  the  matter.  From  the  lowest  to  the  highest  we  all  know  that 
we  are  fighting  for  our  existence.  I  know  that  soldiers  of  the 
other  nations  probably  say,  and  a  great  many  of  them  probably 
think,  the  same  thing.  This  does  not  alter  the  fact,  however, 
that  we  are  actually  fighting  for  our  national  fife. 

"Since  we  knew  that  the  present  war  was  to  be  forced  on  us 
it  became  our  highest  duty  to  anticipate  the  struggle  by  every 
necessary  and  possible  preparation  for  the  defense  of  the  Father- 
land, against  the  iron  ring  w^hich  our  enemies  have  for  years  been 
carefully  and  steadily  welding  about  us. 

"The  fact  that  we  foresaw  and,  as  far  as  possible,  forestalled 
the  attempt  to  crush  us  within  this  ring,  and  the  fact  that  we 
were  prepared  to  defend  ourselves  is  now  being  used  as  an  argu- 
ment in  an  attempt  to  convince  the  world  that  we  not  only 
wanted  this  conflict,  but  that  we  are  responsible  for  it. 

Germans  Are  a  Unit 

"No  power  on  earth  will  ever  be  able  to  convince  our  people 
that  this  war  was  not  engineered  solely  and  wholly  with  a  view 
to  crushing  the  German  people,  their  Government,  their  institu- 
tions and  all  that  they  hold  dear.  As  a  result,  you  will  find  the 
German  people  are  one  grand  unit  imbued  with  a  magnificent 
spirit  of  self-sacrifice." 

The  scene  of  our  conversation  was  the  drawing-room  of  a 
small  French  villa,  located  a  few  miles  directly  back  of  the 
German  fighting-lines  and  used  by  the  Crown  Prince  as  a  head- 
quarters for  himself  and  staff.  The  Crown  Prince  entered, 
accompanied  by  Major  von  der  Planitz,  who,  after  presenting 
me,  withdrew. 

The  young  commander  of  the  German  forces  was  dressed 
simply  in  the  gray-green  khaki  of  his  troops,  in  a  uniform  devoid 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR        5 

of  any  decorations  save  a  very  small  insignia  of  his  rank  of 
lieutenant-general  and  his  recently-acquired  black  and  white 
ribbon  of  the  Order  of  the  Iron  Cross.  He  carried  no  sword, 
but  toyed  with  a  short  swagger  stick  similar  to  those  carried  by 
English  cavalry  officers. 

Holds  England  Responsible 

Our  conversation  had  been  in  progress  but  a  short  time  when 
it  became  clear  to  me  that  the  Crown  Prince,  like  99  per  cent 
of  the  Germans  I  have  met  on  the  firing  line  and  off  of  it,  holds 
England  responsible  for  the  present  war. 

The  thing  that  impressed  me  most,  however,  was  the  fact 
that  despite  the  intensity  of  his  convictions  he  displayed  none 
of  the  intense  hatred  or  the  bitterness  toward  the  EngHsh  which 
I  have  observed  so  constantly  among  people  of  all  w^alks  of  Hfe 
since  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  On  the  contrary,  there  was  a 
note  of  regret  and  almost  one  of  sadness  as  he  discussed  this 
phase  of  the  great  issue. 

I  quickly  gained  the  impression  that  the  Crown  Prince  is  by 
no  means  the  man  he  has  been  pictured  in  England  and  America. 

There  is  nothing  of  the  fire-eater  nor  uncompromising  warrior 
about  him.  He  gave  no  eN-idence  of  gaining  pleasure  from  his 
mihtary  experience  or  of  delighting  in  conflict.  It  was  obvious 
that  the  carnage  he  has  already  witnessed  has  made  a  deep 
imprint  on  his  naturally  impressionistic  mind,  and  he  referred 
frequently  to  the  losses  and  the  suffering,  not  only  of  his  own 
but  of  the  enemy's  forces. 

He  was  exceedingly  generous  at  all  times  in  his  praise  of  the 
enemy  as  he  had  come  in  contact  with  them.  If  he  was  ever 
possessed  of  a  reckless,  dare-devil,  carefree  personality  the  last 
traces  of  it  have  apparently  been  removed  by  his  work  of  the 
past  few  months. 

Surprised  by  America's  Attitude 

Early  in  the  conversation  his  Imperial  Higlmess  assumed  the 
role  of  the  interviewer  and  made  evident  his  deep  interest  in  the 
sentiment  of  America  and  Americans  and  his  lack  of  under- 
standing of  the  general  attitude  of  our  country  toward  Germany's 
position.  Like  a  great  majority  of  all  Germans,  he  is  unable 
exactly  to  understand  why  there  is  not  more  sympathy  in  the 
United  States  for  Germany. 


6        CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

"There  is  no  use  or  no  purpose  to  be  served  by  our  closing 
our  eyes,"  he  said,  "to  the  fact  that  a  very  large  part  of  the 
world  is  against  us. 

"But  it  surprises  me  that  America,  to  which  we  are  bound 
by  ties  of  friendship  and  blood  as  to  no  other  neutral  country; 
America,  where  millions  of  our  people  have  gone  and  carried  the 
German  tongue  and  German  ideas  of  liberty  and  freedom,  should 
be  so  totally  unable  to  put  itself  in  our  place. 

"I  would  not  be  frank  unless  I  admitted  that  it  has  been 
a  surprise  to  me  that  Americans  have  not  seen  more  clearly  up 
to  this  time  the  position  of  Germany,  entirely  surrounded  by 
jealous  enemies,  fighting  for  her  existence;  that  they  have  not 
had  a  better  understanding  which  would  necessarily  mean  a 
higher  appreciation  of  the  unexampled  sacrifices  and  heroism  of 
our  people,  making  this  gigantic  struggle  with  no  other  objective 
than  the  saving  of  the  Fatherland." 

He  attributed  the  attitude  of  America  almost  wholly  to 
England's  control  of  the  press  and  the  world's  channels  of  com- 
munication. He  frankly  admitted  that  in  the  past  Germany  has 
failed  to  appreciate  the  important  role  played  by  the  press  in 
world  pohtics  and  in  international  affairs.  He  made  it  clear  that 
Germany  has  learned  a  lesson  in  this  respect,  and  learned  it  at 
the  price  of  being  branded  in  the  eyes  of  the  neutral  nations  as 
a  mihtary  menace  to  the  world's  peace. 

Expects  Sentiment  to  Change 

"I  have  faith  in  the  sense  of  justice  of  the  American  people," 
said  his  Highness,  "once  we  can  get  to  them  the  actual  facts 
and  the  actual  truths  back  of  this  conflict.  I  know  that  up  to 
this  time  it  has  been  impossible  for  them  to  thoroughly  under- 
stand our  situation,  but  I  believe  that  when  the  truth  is  known 
to  them  the  fair-mindedness  and  the  love  of  fair  play,  which  has 
always  characterized  the  acts  of  your  countrymen,  will  result  in 
a  revulsion  of  sentiment  in  our  favor. 

"I  had  many  friends  in  America.  I  beUeve  I  still  have  some 
there.  I  also  have  many  friends  in  England — or  rather  had,"  said 
the  Prince,  with  a  rueful  smile  and  a  shake  of  his  head.  Then, 
turning  abruptly  and  looking  me  squarely  in  ihe  eye,  he  said: 

"I  want  you  to  tell  me  exactly  what  is  said  about  me  in 
America." 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR        7 

I  hesitated  a  moment,  trying  to  figure  just  how  much  frank- 
ness was  compatible  with  discretion  in  discussing  personahties 
with  the  Crown  Prince  of  the  German  Empire.  Apparently 
reading  my  thoughts,  his  Highness  laughed  good-naturedly,  and 
prompted : 

"I  like  frankness  and  can  stand  the  truth.  Go  ahead.  I 
really  want  to  know." 

''Well,"  I  replied,  "the  fact  is  that  your  Imperial  Highness 
has  been  very  generally  represented,  or  misrepresented,  as  one 
of  the  Kriegshetzer,  a  war  agitator,  leader  of  the  war  party,  and 
exponent  extraordinary  of  militarism." 

Do  They  Believe  I'm  a  Thief? 

•'Yes,  I  know,"  said  the  Crown  Prince,  nodding  his  head  in 
assent  and  giving  no  evidence  of  surprise,  "and  the  English 
press  says  all  that  and  much  more.  The  Enghsh  papers  have 
stated  that  I  am  a  thief  and  that  I  have  personally  robbed  and 
pillaged  these  French  houses  in  which  we  have  been  forced  to 
make  our  headquarters.  Really — and  I  want  you  to  tell  me 
frankly — is  it  possible  that  intelligent  people  in  America  or  even 
in  England  can  honestly  believe  such  things  of  me?  Can  it  be 
possible  that  they  beheve  me  capable  of  steaKng  pictures  or  art 
treasures,  or  permitting  the  looting  of  French  homes?" 

I  reminded  him  that  in  war  times  sane  Judgment  often  went 
by  the  boards. 

"I  know,  but  it  is  simply  incredible  that  people  could  believe 
what  the  English  papers  have  printed  about  me  personally  and 
about  our  side  of  the  war.  Let's  see,  how  many  times  have  I 
committed  suicide  or  been  wounded?" 

I  admitted  that  I  had  lost  count. 

"I  am  supposed  recently  to  have  been  badly  defeated  on  the 
Russian  frontier,"  chuckled  his  Highness.  "But  this  whole 
business  would  be  much  more  amusing,"  he  added  in  a  more 
sober  tone,  "if  I  did  not  know  that  as  a  result  of  it  the  pubHc  in 
neutral  countries  is  being  misled.  As  to  my  being  a  war  agitator, 
I  am  truly  sorry  that  people  do  not  know  me  better." 

"  No  "War  Party  in  Germany  " 
"There  is  no  war  party  in  Germany  now  and  there  never 
has  been.    I  cannot  help  believing  that  it  will  very  soon  dawn 
upon  the  world  that  so  far  as  Germany  is  concerned  this  conflict 


8        CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

is  not  a  war  waged  by  some  mythical  party,  but  is  a  fight  backed 
by  the  unity  and  solidarity  of  the  German  Empire.  This  unity 
is  the  best  answer  to  the  charge  with  which  England  is  endeavor- 
ing to  terrify  the  world — that  the  war  is  being  pushed  by  an 
ambitious  military  clique." 

The  young  soldier  laughed  heartily  when  I  told  him  that  the 
Russian  press  bureau  had  recently  reported  that  their  troops 
nearly  captured  the  Kaiser  during  a  recent  engagement  near 
Warsaw. 

"I  must  tell  father  about  that.  I  am  sure  it  will  be  news  to 
him  and  that  he  will  enjoy  it,"  he  said. 

Praises  French  Troops 

Switching  to  the  subject  of  the  enemy,  the  Crown  Prince 
said: 

"The  French  soldiers  are  surpassed  by  none  for  their  bravery. 
They  have  fought  splendidly.  Individually,  the  French  soldier 
is  equal  in  every  respect  to  our  own  intelligence,  and  in  some 
things  is  quicker  and  more  agile.  But  he  is  a  defensive  fighter 
and  lacks  the  dogged  determination  and  staying  power  of  our 
troops  when  it  comes  to  offensive  work.  Events  have  shown 
that  French  leadership  has  been  excellent,  and  it  has  commanded 
our  admiration." 

After  a  half  hour's  interview  we  were  interrupted  by  an 
officer  who  reported  to  the  Crown  Prince  that  his  staff  was 
mounted  and  waiting  outside.  First  inviting  me  to  have  dinner 
with  him  that  evening,  his  Highness  excused  himself,  and,  mount- 
ing his  horse,  galloped  away  to  the  scene  of  the  day's  fighting. 

During  dinner  he  returned  to  the  subject  of  America  and  his 
desire  to  visit  our  country. 

Had  Planned  Trip  Here 

"I  had  all  arrangements  made  for  a  visit  two  years  ago,"  he 
said,  "but  political  objections  prevented  my  trip.  I  had  deter- 
mined on  a  visit  this  year  and  had  planned  a  hunting  trip  with 
Ambassador  Gerard,  but  the  war  has,  of  course,  spoiled  that. 
Some  time,  however,  I  intend  to  make  the  trip.  I  am  especially 
interested  in  your  big  industrial  centers  like  Pittsburgh  and 
Chicago,  and  in  your  beautiful  cities  like  Detroit,  San  Francisco 
and  Portland. 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR        9 

"I  am  most  anxious  to  see  one  of  your  baseball  games  and  one 
of  your  baseball  crowds.  You  know  I  have  been  greatly  inter- 
ested in  sports  and  in  furthering  them  with  consideration  to  the 
physical  training  of  our  young  men.  Personally,  it  has  been  a 
big  disappointment  to  me  that  the  war  has  made  impossible  the 
scheduled  Olympic  games  at  Berlin." 

A  glance  at  the  reading  table  in  the  Crown  Prince's  room 
nailed  the  generally  repeated  story  that  he  reads  only  what  is 
clipped  for  him.  I  saw  on  his  table  leading  American,  English, 
French  and  Italian  papers,  with  several  numbers  of  Puck  and 
Lije.  I  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  American  humor,  and  he 
replied  that  Life  was  one  of  his  favorite  magazines  because  of  its 
clever  poHtical  satire,  its  wisdom  and  its  faculty  for  puncturing 
conceit.  The  conversation  developed  that  I  have  an  acquaintance 
with  Jack  London. 

He  Likes  Jack  London 

"London  is  one  of  my  favorite  American  authors,"  he  said, 
"and  I  would  like  very  much  to  meet  him.  I  think  that  his 
portrayal  of  nature  and  the  breath  of  the  outdoors,  together 
with  his  forcefulness,  give  his  writings  great  power." 

I  reminded  him  that  London  was  a  SociaUst. 

"That  would  not  make  me  want  any  less  to  know  what  kind 
of  a  man  writes  such  books,"  was  the  quick  reply. 

Our  conversation  drifted  along  freely,  skipping  about  from 
war  to  literature,  to  sports  and  to  human  nature  generally.  It 
was  impossible,  however,  for  me  to  get  from  his  Highness  for 
quotation  any  statement  of  a  political  nature.  Our  general  talk, 
however,  served  to  convince  me  that  if  this  young  man,  who  will 
in  all  probability  one  day  rule  the  German  Empire,  was  ever  the 
hot-headed  and  boisterous  youth  he  has  been  painted,  the  war 
has  turned  him  into  a  sober,  earnest,  thoughtful  man,  with  a 
deep  sense  of  his  responsibility.  Despite  his  bo}ash  appearance 
(he  does  not  look  his  32  years)  the  Crown  Prince  is  the  most 
modem  and  up-to-date  thinker  I  have  met  in  German  officialdom. 

A  Natural  Human  Being 

The  keynote  of  his  make-up  is  his  simplicity,  lack  of  affecta- 
tion and  the  faculty  he  has  of  impressing  you  with  the  idea  that 
he  is  just  a  natural  human  being,  a  man  among  men,  with  a 
quiet  dignity,  no  poses  and  a  hearty  and  freely-expressed  dislike 


lo      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

of  pomp.  There  seems  little  doubt  that  his  reputation  for  break- 
ing precedents  and  disregarding  traditions,  especially  if  they  have 
a  tendency  to  hamper  progress,  is  well  earned.  He  is  no  diplo- 
mat, knows  and  admits  it.  He  gives  the  impression  of  knowing 
his  own  limitations,  but  has  a  straightforward  manner  and  an 
incKnation  to  say  just  what  he  thinks,  which  makes  him  both 
trouble  and  friends.  He  has  an  unusual  trait  of  being  able  to 
hear  the  unpleasant  truth  with  good  grace.  His  greatest  an- 
tipathy is  to  flatterers. 

From  my  conversation  with  him  I  gathered  that  the  Crown 
Prince  is  strongly  opposed  to  bureaucracy  and  everything  stand- 
ing between  the  people  and  their  ruler.  It  developed  from  my 
conversations  with  members  of  his  staff  that  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  get  him  to  sign  the  death  sentence  of  a  convicted  spy 
or  franc-tireur. 

Recently  when  the  French  stormed  the  German  trenches  in 
the  Argonne  and  were  hurled  back  at  one  point  with  an  unusually 
heavy  loss,  the  Crown  Prince  offered  the  French  a  truce  in  order 
that  they  might  gather  up  their  wounded,  who  strewed  the 
ground  before  the  German  trenches.  When  I  asked  the  Crown 
Prince  about  the  incident,  he  replied: 

"Yes,  there  were  several  hundred  dead  and  wounded  in  front 
of  our  trenches.  I  simply  could  not  stand  it,  thinking  of  those 
brave  fellows  badly  wounded,  and  lying  there,  many  of  them 
dying  within  a  few  yards  of  our  doctors  and  nurses,  while  others 
were  trying  to  drag  themselves  inch  by  inch  toward  our  or  their 
own  trenches.  I  almost  had  a  row  about  it  with  my  Chief  of 
Staff,  who  opposed  me  in  the  matter,  saying  the  French  would 
only  report  that  we  had  asked  for  a  truce  because  we  were 
defeated.  But  I  insisted  on  a  white  flag  bearer  being  sent  to 
the  French  trenches  with  an  oft'er  to  give  them  time  to  get  their 
wounded  or  allow  us  to  get  them.  They  refused,  and,  as  a  result, 
hundreds  of  those  wounded  fellows  who  might  have  been  saved 
perished  miserably.  Some  of  them  lived  three  or  four  days 
without  food,  water  or  medical  attention.  The  whole  thing 
seemed  to  me  an  instance  of  senseless  and  useless  cruelty." 

As  a  matter  of  fact  I  learned  from  other  officers  that  the 
Chief  of  Staff  was  right  in  his  judgment.  The  French  did  report 
that  the  Germans  had  asked  for  a  truce. 

I  found  among  the  officers  of  his  staff,  mostly  all  young  men 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      ii 

like  himself,  the  Crown  Prince  is  an  idol.  From  elder  officers, 
I  learned  that  the  young  man  has  demonstrated  an  unusual 
capacity  for  strategic  problems,  and  the  prediction  is  made  that 
the  war  wiU  serve  to  place  him  in  the  Hst  of  Germany's  greatest 
generals. 


WHAT   IS   GERMAN   "CULTURE"? 

Editorial  from  the  "North  American,**  Philadelphia, 
Saturday,  November  28 

In  counting  up  the  adverse  influences  which  have  beset  Ger- 
many in  her  relations  toward  the  world,  most  of  us  consider  only 
the  armaments  allied  against  her  and  the  moral  opposition 
aroused  against  certain  of  her  acts  and  policies.  Yet  there  is 
another  thing,  a  seeming  trifle,  which  has  had  a  potent  effect 
in  causing  misunderstanding  of  German  thought  and  purpose, 
and  misunderstanding  is  the  parent  of  injustice  and  enmity. 

This  handicap  lies  in  the  difficulty  of  expressing  German 
ideas  with  exactitude  in  other  languages,  and  particularly  in 
English.  Next  to  a  democratic  form  of  government  and  a  some- 
what higher  conception  of  international  morality,  Germany's 
most  urgent  need,  we  should  say,  is  a  competent  interpretation. 
An  expert  translator  with  sufficient  authority  to  command  atten- 
tion and  sufficient  familiarity  with  both  languages  to  render  into 
idiomatic  English  the  phraseology  of  her  pubhc  affairs  and  utter- 
ances would  be  a  priceless  treasure  to  the  Empire. 

The  possibilities  of  confusion  that  lurk  in  hasty,  ill-considered 
translations  from  one  tongue  to  another  are  really  stupendous. 
There  are  thoughts  and  ideas  quite  elementary  to  one  people 
which  members  of  another  race  cannot  mentally  visualize  with 
even  approximate  accuracy. 

For  example,  the  Japanese  who  speaks  of  his  "honorable 
grandmother"  expresses  a  pious  veneration  which  reaches  back 
into  the  dim  regions  of  antiquity  and  passes  the  borderland  of 
religious  sanctity.  Yet  a  fictitious  Japanese  schoolboy  of  current 
American  humor  makes  the  phrase  "Hon.  grandmother"  ir- 
resistibly comic. 

To  give  another  instance  from  the  same  nation,  a  Japanese 
convert  to  Christianity  rendered  into  his  tongue  the  solemn 
words  "Rock  of  Ages,  cleft  for  me."  His  intent  was  the  most 
pious  in  the  world,  but  his  hearers  among  his  own  people  were 
profoundly  puzzled  by  reading  the  Japanese  equivalent  of  "  Very 
old  stone,  split  for  my  benefit." 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR       13 

That  Germany  has  suffered  seriously  by  the  perversity  of 
transplanted  words  is  not  to  be  doubted.  While  she  was  at 
peace  with  all  the  world,  no  great  damage  to  her  standing  was 
apparent.  But  no  sooner  had  she  become  involved  in  war  than 
her  foes  and  her  critics  made  joyous  use  of  distorted  translations 
which  had  long  been  current. 

The  Kaiser,  as  the  most  noted  and  most  picturesque  spokes- 
man of  the  nation,  has  naturally  been  the  chief  victim  in  this 
regard.  His  exalted  mysticism  and  his  profound  conviction  of 
liis  high  mission  in  the  world  have  exaggerated  the  widespread 
misconception  of  some  of  his  most  familiar  utterances.  Phrases 
that  to  his  own  people  ring  true  and  are  filled  with  kingly  nobility 
have  been  so  marred  in  being  carried  into  other  tongues  that 
they  have  sped  round  the  world  amid  irreverent  laughter. 

"Supreme  war  lord" — thus,  as  everybody  knows,  his  Imperial 
Majesty  is  sometimes  addressed,  and  thus  he  is  wont  to  name 
himself  in  his  stirring  exhortations  to  his  troops.  It  is  a  mouth- 
filling  term,  worthy  of  the  military  magnificence  and  worshipful 
pomp  that  supposedly  envelop  the  Kaiser,  and  has  become  so 
embedded  in  popular  thought  that  it  would  be  hopeless  to  en- 
deavor to  pry  it  out. 

Yet  the  fact  is  that  the  phrase  as  it  has  reached  us  is  wholly 
misleading.  Wilhelm  II,  never  was  hailed  and  never  described 
himself  as  "supreme  war  lord"  of  the  German  people.  The  title 
he  uses,  with  perfect  right  and  propriety,  is  "Oberkriegsherr," 
and  its  real  meaning  is  pretty  well  rendered  by  "  commander-in- 
chief,"  a  title  which  the  President  of  the  United  States  bears  in 
his  capacity  as  head  of  the  army  and  navy  without  arousing 
fears  of  imperialistic  designs. 

Since  the  beginning  of  hostilities,  the  Emperor's  words  have 
been  more  closely  scrutinized  than  ever  by  his  foes.  A  perfect 
fusillade  of  criticism  was  leveled  at  him  a  few  weeks  ago  by 
persons  whose  religious  sensibiHties  had  been  shocked  by  a 
sentence  in  an  address  to  a  regiment. 

"We  shall  yet  destroy  our  enemies,"  ran  the  report  of  the 
imperial  speech.    "Our  old  God  up  there  will  give  us  the  victory." 

This  was  really  too  much.  A  belief  in  the  divine  right  of 
kings  is  bad  enough,  but  it  is  intolerable  that  the  delusion  should 
be  carried  so  far  that  a  man,  however  exalted,  should  invoke  the 
Creator  with  such  arrogant  familiarity.    The  reference  to  "our 


14      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

old  God  up  there"  seemed  in  wretched  taste,  and  that  the 
German  people  did  not  resent  it  proved,  of  course,  their  pagan 
depravity. 

Unfortunately  for  the  value  of  this  criticism,  however,  the 
Kaiser's  words  had  no  such  meaning  as  was  attributed  to  them. 
His  rehgious  faith  is  one  of  the  passions  of  his  Ufe,  and  his  pious 
veneration  for  sacred  things  a  habit  founded  upon  deep  con- 
viction. What  he  really  said  was,  "Our  ancient  God  on  high 
will  give  us  the  victory,"  and,  whatever  may  be  the  thought  of 
his  theory,  the  most  bitter  opponent  cannot  justly  complain  of 
his  phraseology. 

But  these  examples  of  error  in  regard  to  German  ideas  are 
trifling  compared  to  a  misconception  which  is  even  more  baseless. 
If  we  were  asked  to  name  the  one  thing  most  hurtful  to  the 
German  cause  we  should  hesitate  whether  to  cite  the  violation 
of  Belgium's  neutrality,  the  sack  of  Louvain  or  the  phrase 
"German  culture." 

Certainly  the  first  two  have  created  a  vast  volume  of  un- 
favorable judgment,  but  the  third  has  had  an  inflammatory 
effect  upon  the  public  mind  that  is  quite  deadly.  And  all  through 
a  misunderstanding. 

The  prominence  of  German  "Kultur"  in  the  controversy  is 
due  to  its  persistent  emphasis  by  all  spokesmen  for  that  side. 
The  Kaiser  exhorts  his  troops  to  defend  the  Fatherland  and 
"Kultur."  It  was  Teutonic  "Kultur"  that  was  in  peril  from 
Russian  barbarism,  necessitating  an  invasion  of  Belgium.  The 
imperial  Chancellor  used  it  in  his  oration  to  the  Reichstag,  and 
it  appears  in  all  the  manifestoes  of  statesmen,  diplomats,  soldiers, 
journalists,  university  professors  and  other  advocates  for  the 
Empire. 

German  "Kultur,"  we  have  been  instructed,  is  the  very  soul 
of  Teutonic  ci\'ilization,  the  upHfting  force  in  Europe,  the  one 
thing  needful  to  regenerate  the  world.  Beside  it,  the  "Kultur" 
of  any  other  nation  whatsoever  is  a  pitiable  counterfeit.  It 
sanctified  the  ambitions  of  Pan- Germanism  and  justified  every 
device  used  to  spread  its  beneficent  influence. 

Now,  to  most  non-Germans,  this  apparent  claim  to  the 
possession  of  an  exclusive  "culture"  was  at  first  merely  amusing. 
Students  of  the  glories  of  genius  in  art,  music,  literature  and 
science,  which  are  the  heritage  of  the  Latin  and  Celtic  and 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      15 

Anglo-Saxon  peoples,  found  the  solemn  assumption  of  Teutonic 
superiority  quite  exhilarating. 

But  in  time  the  word  became  an  irritation.  The  air  of  bland 
finality  with  which  it  was  uttered  by  German  sympathizers 
seemed  ahnost  offensive,  and  by  common  consent  their  own 
weapon  was  turned  against  them. 

"Confound  your  'culture'!"  said  the  exasperated  world. 
"Some  of  us  had  scholarship  and  pohsh  and  spiritual  enlighten- 
ment when  you  were  barbarians,  and  we  have  works  of  genius 
which  tower  above  your  best  productions  Hke  moimtain  peaks 
above  a  plain.  Moreover,  we  do  not  observe  in  your  social 
habits,  your  politics  or  your  international  relations  any  im- 
pressive signs  of  a  special  refinement  which  we  might  profitably 
adopt." 

Hence  it  became  a  habit  among  Germany's  critics  to  fling 
her  "culture"  in  her  teeth.  The  most  inexpert  controversialist 
could  make  a  telHng  point  by  inquiring  whether  the  repudiation 
of  treaties  and  the  burning  of  cities  were  evidences  of  German 
"culture"  in  operation. 

Yet  all  this  is  lamentably  unjust.  Germany  has  not  arrogated 
to  herself  the  possession  of  the  highest  "  culture."  Her  "  Kultur  " 
is  something  quite  apart  from  the  popular  meaning  given  to  the 
term  used  to  express  it  in  English. 

Culture,  in  the  narrow  sense  in  which  most  of  us  use  it  implies, 
development  of  the  mind,  refinement  of  the  sensibiHties,  enlarge- 
ment of  the  spiritual  vision,  encouragement  of  lofty  aspirations. 
"Kultur,"  on  the  contrary,  is  intensely  practical  and  material- 
istic.   It  is  an  all-embracing  term  for  advanced  civilization. 

When  the  German  speaks  of  "Kultur"  he  means  not  only 
scholarship  and  artistic  genius,  but  all  the  developments  in 
governmental,  social  and  economic  betterment. 

He  includes  expert  and  honest  municipal  rule,  scientific 
efficiency  in  industry,  education  and  mihtary  training,  high 
standards  of  service  in  pubHc  utilities,  conservation  of  natural 
resources,  effective  measures  of  pubHc  sanitation,  an  aggressive 
commercial  pohcy,  the  amelioration  of  poverty  and  the  elimina- 
tion of  uneconomic  living  conditions,  old-age  pensions,  industrial 
insurance  and  a  thousand  other  results  of  German  thoroughness 
in  dealing  with  the  problems  of  existence. 

"KuUur''  means  not  only  achievements  in  the  arts  and  sciences, 


i6      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

but  in  everyday  progress.  It  embraces  not  only  poems  and  sym- 
phonies, but  dirigible  airships,  sanitary  tenements  and  scientific 
sewage  disposal.    It  covers  the  whole  range  oj  German  civilization. 

It  is  for  this  that  the  German  people  are  fighting. 
Rightly  or  wrongly,  they  are  possessed  with  the  idea  that  other 
nations  have  plotted  to  destroy  it,  and  they  have  proved  them- 
selves ready  for  any  sacrifice  to  preserve  it. 

Humanity  may  properly  deplore  and  resent  the  theory  that 
this  "Kultur,"  magnificent  as  it  is,  justifies  the  ignoring  of 
treaties  as  "scraps  of  paper"  and  efforts  to  impose  it  upon  free 
nations  by  force  of  arms.  But  it  must  be  conceded  that  the 
cause  is  not  so  trifling  as  generally  supposed. 

How  much  Germany  has  suffered  from  the  worldwide  mis- 
conception of  her  favorite  word,  it  would  be  impossible  to  estimate. 
But  our  judgment  is  that  she  might  profitably  exchange  her 
whole  fleet  of  armored  Zeppelins  for  a  plan  that  would  blot  out 
the  fatally  misunderstood  word  "culture"  from  her  propaganda 
and  from  the  memory  of  mankind. 


HAS  THE   UNITED  STATES  GUARANTEED 
THE  NEUTRALITY  OF  BELGIUM? 

{New  York  Sun,  Nov.  23,  IQ14.) 

Judge  George  Chandler  Holt,  formerly  of  the  United  States 
District  Court  for  this  district,  has  raised  again  in  the  Independent 
the  strange  question  whether  our  Government,  as  a  signer  of  the 
Treaty  of  The  Hague,  is  therefore  a  responsible  guarantor  of  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium.  Let  us  be  careful  to  state  this  remarkable 
proposition  in  Judge  Holt's  own  words: 

"But  the  gravest  infringem.ent  of  the  Hague  Convention 
which  has  taken  place  in  this  war  is  the  \dolation  of  the  neu- 
traHty  of  Belgium.  The  neutrahty  of  Belgium  was  originally 
specifically  guaranteed  by  a  treaty  between  the  principal  Powers 
now  at  war,  but  to  which  the  United  States  was  not  a  party. 
But  it  is  also  guaranteed  by  the  following  general  provisions  of 
the  Hague  Convention,  to  which  the  United  States  is  a  party: 

"'The  territory  of  neutral  Powers  is  inviolable. 

"'BeUigerents  are  forbidden  to  move  troops  or  convoys  of 
either  munitions  of  war  or  supplies  across  territory  of  a  neutral 
Power. 

"'The  fact  of  a  neutral  Power  resisting,  even  by  force, 
attempts  to  violate  its  neutrality  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  hostile 
act.'" 

We  do  not  see  exactly  what  this  estimable  jurist  and  juris- 
consult is  driving  at.  Apparently  all  that  he  desires  is  that  the 
United  States  Government,  as  a  signer  of  the  Convention  of  The 
Hague,  should  register  without  further  delay  a  formal  and 
physically  innocuous  protest  against  Germany's  violation  of 
Belgian  territory  and  the  other  alleged  infringements  of  the 
general  compact  concerning  the  rights  of  neutrality. 

Judge  Holt  Wrong 
But  if  Judge  Holt  were  right  in  his  view  of  this  nation's  ob- 
ligations under  the  Treaty  of  The  Hague,  something  more  than 
futile  accusations  and  ineffective  protests  would  be  our  im- 
mediate duty.  If  the  United  States  Government  by  solemn 
contract  with  the  other  Powers  had  made  itself  responsible  for 
the  maintenance  of  Belgium's  neutrality  it  would  be  our  plain 
duty  to  participate  in  the  physical  business  of  driving  the  invader 
from  Belgian  soil,  of  punishing  him  for  his  unlawful  aggression, 

17 


iS      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

of  collecting  from  him  by  torce  of  arms  the  penalty  of  his  offense 
and  the  solatium  justly  due  to  the  innocent  people  he  has  injured. 

In  other  words,  if  Judge  Holt  were  right,  it  would  become  our 
duty  to  make  war  on  Germany  for  precisely  the  same  reason 
which  Great  Britain  has  declared  as  her  cause  of  war. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this.  Contract  responsibility  for 
Belgium's  neutrality  once  being  admitted  on  our  part,  there  is 
no  middle  course  between  the  cowardly  repudiation  of  treaty 
obligations  and  the  fuU  performance,  no  matter  at  what  cost, 
of  that  duty  which  Judge  Holt  says  we  have  undertaken  as  one 
of  the  responsible  underwriters  of  Belgium's  neutrality. 

But  it  happens  that  Judge  Holt  is  not  right  in  his  view  of  this 
nation's  obligation  under  the  several  conventions  of  The  Hague. 
Every  one  of  these  successive  conventions  was  signed  by  the 
American  delegates  and  ratified  by  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  under  reservation  of  the  declaration  originally  presented 
to  the  conference  on  July  25,  1899,  and  reiterated  in  almost 
identical  words  in  the  plenary  session  of  the  Conference  of 
October  16,  1907,  as  follows: 

"Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention  shall  be  so  construed 
as  to  require  the  United  States  of  America  to  depart  from  its 
traditional  policy  of  not  intruding  upon,  interfering  with  or 
entangling  itself  in  the  poUtical  questions  or  policy  or  internal 
administration  of  any  foreign  State;  nor  shall  anything  contained 
in  the  said  Convention  be  construed  to  imply  a  relinquishment 
by  the  United  States  of  its  traditional  attitude  toward  purely 
American  questions." 

There  are  two  sides  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  both  sides 
are  here  stated  in  qualification  or  modification  of  any  responsi- 
bilities we  undertook  at  either  of  the  Peace  Conferences  at  The 
Hague.  The  first  reservation  amply  covers  the  question  which 
Judge  Holt  raises. 

That  intelligent  jurist  will  be  quick  to  perceive  the  distinction 
between  our  undertaking  to  observe  on  our  part  the  international 
rules  laid  down  in  the  several  treaties  of  The  Hague  and  our 
undertaking  to  enforce  the  same  rules  in  the  case  of  European 
nations.  He  will  be  quick  to  see  that  in  view  of  the  broad 
reservation  just  quoted  we  cannot,  by  any  stretch  of  imagination 
or  parchment  or  paper,  be  regarded  as  a  responsible  guarantor 
of  the  neutrality  of  Belgium. 


CHAOS   IN  THE  RULES  OF  WAR 

{New  York  Sun,  Nov.  25,  1914-) 

There  is  current  just  now  much  loose  talk  about  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  United  States,  as  a  signatory  of  the  various  con- 
ventions adopted  at  The  Hague  in  1907,  for  the  appHcation  and 
enforcement  of  the  rules  as  to  war  on  land,  the  rules  as  to  war 
on  sea,  and  the  rules  as  to  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  which 
were  enacted  at  that  memorable  Conference  of  forty-four  Powers. 

Of  the  general  sleaziness  of  thought  and  imperfection  of 
knowledge  concerning  the  status  of  these  codes  of  war  and 
neutraHty  we  are  having  every  day  amazing  illustrations  by  the 
dozen.  Yesterday,  The  Sun  commented  on  the  proposition  of 
Judge  Holt,  in  the  Independent,  that  the  neutrahty  of  Belgium, 
in  addition  to  special  treaties,  was  guaranteed  by  one  of  the  con- 
ventions adopted  at  The  Hague  and  that  the  United  States 
Government  was  a  party  to  that  guarantee,  with  consequent 
responsibility  and  duty  in  the  present  situation.  Now  comes 
the  Rev.  George  W.  Douglas,  the  senior  canon  of  St.  John  the 
Divine,  with  remarks  which  exemplify  with  sufficient  inaccuracy 
the  widespread  misunderstanding  on  the  subject.  For  that  reason 
they  afford  a  convenient  text,  and  we  accordingly  use  them  as 
such.    Canon  Douglas  is  thus  reported  by  the  Tribune: 

"The  United  States  was  a  party  to  The  Hague  Convention 
at  which  certain  articles  were  signed  by  aU  the  great  Powers. 
As  a  party  to  such  a  contract,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  United  States 
to  live  up  to  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  and  to  insist  that  other 
nations  do  the  same.  It  was  expressly  stated  that  no  armies 
should  be  moved  across  neutral  territory,  and  that  floating  or 
unanchored  mines  should  not  be  sown  in  the  open  sea. 

"For  the  United  States  to  proclaim  neutrality  is  right  and 
proper.  But  neutrahty  does  not  mean  that  we  shall  see  the 
terms  of  such  articles  violated  without  protest.  Therefore,  it 
is  our  duty  when  the  terms  of  The  Hague  Convention  are  dis- 
regarded to  remonstrate  and  hold  up  to  censure  the  offending 
party  or  parties.    Any  other  course  will  brand  us  as  cowards." 

19 


20      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  Vv^AR 

The  Exact  Truth  Stated 

It  is  about  time  that  the  exact  truth  should  be  stated  about  these 
rules  of  war  and  neutrality,  supposed  by  almost  everybody  to  be 
in  force  in  the  existing  contest,  and  likewise  supposed  by  some  people 
to  devolve  upon  this  nation  responsibility  for  their  assertion;  at 
least  to  the  extent  of  vigorous  protest. 

The  rules  now  generally  believed  to  be  binding  upon  the 
belligerents  in  Europe  were  embodied  in  the  series  of  fifteen 
treaties  or  conventions  signed  by  the  representatives  of  the 
forty-four  Powers  at  the  second  international  Peace  Conference 
at  The  Hague  seven  years  ago;  these  instruments  being  revisions 
and  extensions  of  the  original  treaties  signed  at  the  first  Peace 
Conference  in  1899.  Some  of  the  more  flagrantly  disregarded  of 
these  provisions  we  extracted  from  the  several  conventions  and 
printed  on  this  page  yesterday  under  the  heading  "Scraps  of 
Paper?"  It  may  have  been  observed  by  those  interested  that 
to  this  exhibit  we  appended  a  note  saying  that  many  of  the  pro- 
positions were  not  ratified  by  "all"  the  Powers  now  belHgerent, 
and  that  there  was  a  question  as  to  their  force  in  the  present  war. 

It  is  somewhat  of  a  coincidence  that  there  also  came  yesterday 
from  Washington  the  news  that  our  State  Department  has 
reached  the  conclusion  that  the  so-called  Declaration  of  London 
is  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  vahd  for  the  regulation  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  belligerents  in  naval  warfare. 

The  broad  fact  is  that  none  of  the  codes  formulated  at  The  Hague 
in  igoy  for  the  mitigation  of  the  horrors  of  war,  for  the  preservation 
of  the  rights  of  private  property,  for  the  safeguarding  of  non- 
combatants,  for  the  protection  of  neutral  individuals  and  com- 
munities, can  be  regarded  as  legally  valid  or  in  force  under  the 
present  circinnstances.  This  means  that  the  charge  of  perfidy  or 
violation  of  a  deliberately  undertaken  agreement  drops  out  of 
sight  in  all  such  cases  as  where  one  or  another  of  the  belHgerents 
has  overrun  neutral  territory,  or  bombarded  unfortified  towns, 
or  pillaged  defenseless  villages,  or  dropped  bombs  without  warn- 
ing on  unarmed  places,  or  exacted  enormous  blackmail  from 
helpless  cities.  These  are  all  removed  from  the  category  of  viola- 
tions of  treaty  faith. 

No  Treaties  Violated 

They  may  still  be  deplored  on  general  grounds  of  humanity  and 
public  policy,  they  may  be  rebuked  as  contrary  to  that  vague 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      21 

thing  known  as  'international  law,"  hut  they  can  no  longer  he 
denounced  as  the  deliberate  repudiation  of  engagements  undertaken 
by  solemn  contract  in  treaty  form  recorded  at  The  Hague.  This  is 
true  whether  the  offenses  in  question  have  been  committed  by 
Germans,  by  British,  by  Austrians,  by  Russians,  or  by  French. 

The  practical  and  legal  exemption  of  the  fighting  Powers  from 
the  operation  of  the  rules  of  war  enacted  at  The  Hague  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  one  case  already  referred  to,  namely:  the 
treaty  prohibition  of  entrance  upon  neutral  territory: 

"The  territory  of  neutral  Powers  is  inviolable. 

"BeUigerents  are  forbidden  to  move  troops  or  convoys  of 
either  munitions  of  war  or  suppKes  across  the  territory  of  a 
neutral  Power. 

"The  fact  of  a  neutral  Power  resisting,  even  by  force,  attempts 
to  violate  its  neutrahty  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  hostile  act." 

These  particular  "rules  of  war"  are  contained  in  the  fifth 
Convention  of  the  series  of  fifteen  signed  by  the  forty-four 
Powers  at  The  Hague  in  1907.  It  is  entitled  "Convention 
Respecting  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutral  Powers  and  Persons 
in  War  on  Land."  Under  other  circumstances  the  foregoing 
prohibitions  might  be  operative;  but  Article  XX  of  this  Con- 
vention says: 

"The  provisions  of  the  present  Convention  do  not  apply 
except  between  Contracting  Powers,  and  then  only  if  all  the 
belhgerents  are  parties  to  the  Convention." 

Now,  although  all  the  present  belhgerents  may  have  signed 
this  Convention,  in  the  persons  of  their  respective  representatives 
at  The  Hague,  only  those  Governments  which  subsequently  rati- 
fied the  Convention  became  parties  to  its  engagements.  In  this 
case,  Convention  V  was  ratified  only  by  Germany,  the  United  States 
of  America,  Austria-Hungary,  Denmark,  Mexico,  the  Netherlands, 
Russia,  Sweden,  Bolivia,  and  Salvador.  It  was  not  ratified  by  Eng- 
land or  France.  When  France,  therefore,  became  a  belligerent,  the 
German  Government,  by  the  very  terms  of  this  particular  compact 
and  contract,  was  released  from  its  obligation  not  to  violate  neutral 
territory,  not  to  move  troops  or  convoys  of  munitions  or  supplies 
across  neutral  territory,  not  to  regard  as  a  hostile  act  resistance  on 
the  part  of  the  violated  neutral.  We  are  speaking,  of  course,  of 
Germany 's  violations  of  neutrality  only  so  far  as  they  relate  to 


22      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

obligations  contracted  at  The  Hague;  not  to  other  treaty  ob- 
stacles to  freedom  of  war  action. 

About  Bombs  and  Explosives 
In  the  same  way,  the  treaty  prohibition  of  the  bombardment 
of  undefended  towns,  of  looting,  of  outrages  on  the  non-combatant 
population,  of  the  levy  of  excessive  penalties  on  captured  cities, 
of  the  destruction  of  historic  monuments,  and  so  on,  is  contained 
in  the  various  articles  of  Convention  IV,  "Respecting  the  Laws 
and  Customs  of  War  on  Land."  The  second  article  of  that  Con- 
vention is  as  follows : 

"The  provisions  contained  in  the  Regulations  [annexed  to 
the  Convention],  as  well  as  in  the  present  Convention,  do  not 
apply  except  as  between  Contracting  Powers,  and  then  only  if 
all  the  belUgerents  are  parties  to  the  Convention." 

This  Convention  was  ratified  by  Germany,  the  United  States, 
Austria,  Great  Britain,  and  Russia,  but  not  by  France.  So  far 
as  it  was  a  binding  contract  its  requirements  were  suspended 
when  France  entered  the  fight. 

What  we  have  said  of  the  fifth  and  fourth  Conventions  is 
equally  true  of  these  others  in  the  series : 

"VIII.  Relating  to  the  laying  of  automatic  submarine  contact 
mines.  Ratified  by  Germany,  Austria,  and  Russia,  but  not  by 
Great  Britain  and  France. 

"IX.  Concerning  bombardment  by  naval  forces  in  time  of 
war.  Ratified  by  Germany,  Austria,  Great  Britain,  Russia,  but 
not  by  France. 

"X.  For  the  adaptation  of  the  principles  of  the  Geneva 
Convention  to  maritime  warfare.  Ratified  by  Germany,  Austria, 
and  Russia,  but  not  by  Great  Britain  and  France. 

"XL  Relating  to  the  right  of  capture  in  naval  war.  Ratified 
by  Germany,  Austria,  and  Great  Britain,  but  not  by  Russia  and 
France. 

"XIII.  Concerning  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutral  Powers 
in  case  of  maritime  war.  Ratified  by  Germany,  Austria,  and 
Russia,  but  not  by  Great  Britain  and  France. 

"XIV.  Prohibiting  the  discharge  of  projectiles  and  explosives 
from  balloons.  Ratified  by  Great  Britain,  but  not  by  France,  Russia, 
Germany,  and  Austria.'' 

In  each  of  these  Conventions,  covering  as  they  do  almost  the 
entire  range  of  questions  of  mooted  propriety  of  conduct  during 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      23 
> 
war,  there  is  an  article  identical  with  or  similar  to  that  which  is 
printed  above,  nulHfying  the  entire  Convention  unless  all  the 
contestants  are  parties  to  the  same. 

Thus  the  entire  fabric  of  prohibition,  restriction,  regulation 
in  the  interest  of  humanity  and  more  civilized  methods  of  war- 
fare, is  thrown  into  chaos,  so  far  as  the  conventions  of  The  Hague 
are  concerned,  by  this  pervasive  article  obhterating  the  contract 
obligations  in  all  cases  where  any  one  of  the  belligerents  happens 
not  to  be  a  contracting  party. 

In  the  present  war,  therefore,  -the  ambitious  attempt  at 
codification  becomes  a  mere  scrap  of  paper,  legally  invaUd  and 
void. 

And  what  becomes  of  the  persistent  idea  that  the  United  States 
Government,  as  a  party  to  these  several  Conventions,  is  in  duty 
bound  to  intervene  by  act  or  protest  to  enforce  regulations  which 
have  been  made  inoperative  by  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  itself  ? 


NO  RULES  OF  WAR 

Remarks  on  the  Discovery  that  Practically  All  of  The  Hague  Conventions 

Are  Suspended  by  the  Failure  of  Some  of  the  Present  Belligerents 

to  Ratify 

(New  York  Sun,  November  27,  IQ14) 

To  THE  Editor  of  The  Sun — Sir:  Permit  me  to  thank  you 
for  the  article  on  the  "Chaos  in  the  Rules  of  War."  The  Sun 
may  live  in  a  small  building,  but  it  has  a  big  head  for  getting  at 
the  facts.  The  Sun  surely  shines  for  all.  My  first  impression 
of  the  war  was  that  Germany  was  responsible  for  starting  it, 
and  that  she  had  acted  the  part  of  a  desperate  highway  robber, 
violating  every  treaty  and  every  law  of  civilized  warfare.  This 
impression  was,  of  course,  created  by  means  of  the  news  certified 
to  us  by  way  of  London. 

Your  article  of  to-day  puts  Germany  in  the  right,  in  so  far 
as  the  Conventions  of  The  Hague  of  1907  are  concerned;  and 
it  is  rather  astonishing  to  find  that  while  Germany  ratified  five 
out  of  the  six  articles  named  by  you,  Great  Britain  refused  to 
ratify  three  of  the  six. 

If  we  assume  that  England  was  as  well  informed  as  you  are 
regarding  these  articles,  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  Sir  Edward 
Grey  was  not,  then  what  must  we  think  of  the  attitude  of  Eng- 
land, trying  to  make  the  people  of  the  United  States  beheve 
that  Germany  violated  Belgium's  neutrality,  and  that  she  entered 
this  war  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  Belgian  neutrality,  which, 
by  the  way,  she  has  not  done,  and  which  we  are  forced  to  believe 
she  must  have  known  she  could  not  do? 

I  feel  sure  many  others  w^ll  thank  you  for  your  splendid 
article  of  to-day,  for  I  know  the  American  people,  of  whom  I 
am  one,  are  desirous  of  giving  a  square  deal  to  all  the  belligerents. 

George  H.  Gudebrod. 

Hartford,  Conn.,  November  25,  1 914. 


Perhaps  Canon  Douglas  Does  Not  Quite  Get  the  Point 

To  THE  Editor  of  The  Sun — Sir:  Inasmuch  as  in  your 
editorial  article  of  November  25  you  have  done  me  the  honor 
of  referring  to  a  newspaper  report  of  a  recent  address  of  mine, 
it  is  proper  that  I  should  correct  an  inaccuracy  in  that  report. 

24 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      25 

The  reporter  failed  to  catch  the  important  preamble  to  the 
passage  of  my  speech  which  he  took  down.    My  preamble  was: 

//  the  articles  of  The  Hague  Convention  are  not  a  negligible 
scrap  of  paper,  then  each  of  the  contracting  parties  has  a  serious 
responsibihty. 

Then  followed  my  remarks,  which  in  substance  are  correctly 
given. 

If  I  understand  it,  the  contention  of  your  editorial  article  is 
that,  although  some  of  the  ablest  jurists  and  diplomats  of  our 
generation  endeavored  to  draft  a  document  which  would  be  of 
permanent  service  to  the  world  in  international  warfare,  never- 
theless they  failed,  at  least  so  far  as  this  war  is  concerned,  to 
make  it  binding. 

I  have  seen  many  statements  of  the  case  pro  and  con.,  but 
none  that  I  can  remember  puts  your  \dew  of  it  as  clearly  as  your 
editorial  article  does. 

I  have  not  seen  Judge  Holt's  article,  to  which  you  also  refer, 
and  from  what  you  say  of  it  I  gather  that  he  does  not  agree  with 
you.  But  even  if  your  contention  is  altogether  correct,  may  we 
not  hope  that  the  efforts  of  the  next  Hague  Conference  will  be 
more  effective  after  the  awful  lessons  which  the  world  is  learning 
now?  George  Willla.m  Douglas, 

Member  of  the  World's  Alliance  for  the  Promotion  oj 
International  Friendship. 

New  York,  November  25,  19 14. 


The  present  suspension  of  nearly  all  the  rules  of  war,  so  far 
as  the  Conventions  of  the  second  Conference  at  The  Hague  are 
concerned,  is  accomplished  not  by  neglecting  but  by  strictly 
regarding  the.  terms  of  that  compact.  In  each  case  specified 
some  one  or  more  of  the  Powers  now  belKgerent  failed  to  ratify, 
and,  therefore,  as  the  Conventions  provide,  the  rules  become 
inoperative.  For  the  United  States  Government  to  undertake 
to  protest,  as  Canon  Douglas  urges,  aga;nst  the  non-observance 
of  rules  voided  by  the  treaty  itself,  would  be  to  protest  against 
the  treaty  itself.  Canon  Douglas  can  hardly  persist  in  maintain- 
ing that  to  refrain  from  so  doing  is  a  course  that  will  "brand  us 
as  cowards."  As  for  Judge  Holt's  view  of  our  treaty  obhgations, 
and  as  for  the  circumstance  that  it  does  not  agree  with  77/e  Sun's 
view,  we  are  quite  content  to  let  the  Judge  take  care  of  the  dis- 
crepancy in  his  own  way.    But  we  certainly  share  Canon  Doug- 


26      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

las's  hope  that  the  efforts  of  the  next  Peace  Conference  may  be 
more  effective. 


The  Extent  of  This  Nation's  Responsibility  for  Protest  or  Enforcement 

To  THE  Editor  of  The  Sun — Sir:  Permit  me,  as  an  old  and 
appreciative  reader  of  The  Sun,  a  few  remarks  bearing  upon  the 
editorial  article  in  The  Sun  of  yesterday  headed  ''Has  the  United 
States  Guaranteed  the  NeutraHty  of  Belgium?" 

It  would  appear  from  this  article  that  Judge  Holt  is  of  the 
opinion  that  as  one  of  the  signatories  to  the  treaty  of  1  ^^e  Hague 
forbidding  the  violation  of  neutral  territory  by  belHgerents, 
America  is  for  that  reason  bound  to  enter  at  least  a  formal  pro- 
test against  Germany's  invasion  of  Belgium. 

Commenting  on  this  view,  you  seem  to  take  the  ground  that 
for  the  reservation  under  which  the  American  delegates  signed 
and  the  United  States  Senate  ratified  this  as  well  as  other  Con- 
ventions of  The  Hague  it  would  be  incumbent  on  the  United 
States  Government  not  only  to  protest  against  the  invasion  but 
to  join  hands  with  other  signatory  Powers  in  their  efforts  to 
expel  the  invader  from  Belgian  soil.  You  also  declare  that  "If 
Judge  Holt  were  right  it  would  become  our  duty  to  make  war 
on  Germany  for  precisely  the  same  reason  which  Great  Britain 
has  declared." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  provision  of  The  Hague  Convention 
quoted  by  Judge  Holt  amounts  to  no  more  than  the  formal 
expression  and  adoption  of  a  principle  of  international  law  re- 
garded as  well  estabhshed  for  a  century  or  longer  by  American 
as  well  as  other  publicists.  But  it  has  never  been  held,  so  far 
as  I  know,  that  a  violation  of  the  principle  imposes  upon  neutral 
nations  accepting  it  the  duty  of  also  enforcing  it.  Neither  does 
the  provision  of  The  Hague  Convention  under  consideration  do 
so;  and  had  America  subscribed  to  it  without  any  reservation 
whatever  it  would  not  be  obHged  to  take  up  the  cudgels  for 
Belgium. 

In  its  insistence,  as  disclosed  by  the  White  Paper,  that 
Germany  keep  out  of  Belgium,  Great  Britain  did  not  rely  on 
the  principle  mentioned,  but  upon  the  contract  she  entered  into 
in  183 1  with  certain  European  Powers,  including  Prussia — the 
German  Empire  was  then  non-existent — guaranteeing  the  neu- 
trahty  of  Belgium,  a  newly  formed  and  weak  State.  Indeed,  she 
could  not  consistently  have  invoked  this  rule  or  principle,  since 
in  passing  through  Portuguese  territory  she  had  disregarded  it 
in  order  to  get  at  the  Boers;  and  perhaps  she  foresaw  also  that 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      27 

her  Asiatic  ally  might  find  it  convenient  if  not  necessary  to 
violate  the  territory  of  China  for  the  seizure  of  the  district 
Germany  held  under  lease  from  that  country,  a  task  Great 
Britain  had  imposed,  or  intended  to  impose,  upon  the  said  ally. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  point  out  here,  though  outside  of  this 
discussion,  that  Great  Britain's  declaration  of  war  on  Germany 
was  not  altogether  motived  by  her  desire  to  keep  Belgian  soil 
inviolate,  for,  as  again  shown  by  the  White  Paper,  she  declined 
to  commit  herself  when  asked  by  Germany  whether  she  herself 
would  remain  neutral  in  the  war  on  condition  that  Germany 
regarded  Belgium's  neutrality. 

It  would  seem  then  that  if  Judge  Holt's  view  were  correct, 
even  as  limited  by  The  Sun,  heavy  responsibilities  would  be 
added  to  those  Uncle  Sam  has  already  incurred  by  the  main- 
tenance of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Any  attempt  to  carry  such 
a  \dew  into  effect  would  be  an  attempt  to  beat  down  wickedness 
all  over  the  world,  a  manifestly  impossible  undertaking. 

A  Constant  Reader  of  The  Sun. 
Washington,  D.  C,  November  25,  1914. 


If  the  eminent  and  respected  gentleman  who  here  modestly 
presents  himself  as  "Constant  Reader''  will  look  again  at  the 
editorial  article  which  in  one  particular  he  criticises,  he  will  find 
that  the  extent  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
was  only  conditionally  discussed  by  The  Sun.  We  said,  "//  the 
United  States,  by  solemn  compact  with  the  other  Powers,  had 
made  itself  respansihle  for  the  maintenance  of  Belgium's  neu- 
trality, etc."  The  supposition  is  no  longer  worth  discussing, 
excepL  academically.  As  our  esteemed  "Constant  Reader"  will 
have  seen  since  he  wrote  his  letter,  all  question  as  to  the  extent 
of  this  nation's  duty  of  interference  or  protest,  either  with  or 
without  the  Monroe  Doctrine  reservation,  is  removed  by  the 
broad  fact  that  so  far  as  the  compact  of  The  Hague  is  concerned 
there  has  been  no  breach  of  treaty  faith  by  Germany.  Conven- 
tion V,  "Respecting  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutral  Powers 
and  Persons  in  War  on  Land,"  expressly  provides  that  its  pro- 
hibitions shall  not  apply  "except  between  Contracting  Powers, 
and  then  only  if  all  the  belligerents  are  parties  to  the  Conven- 
tion." It  is  a  somewhat  noteworthy  fact  that  in  this  instance 
the  prohibitions  fall  because  England  and  France  failed  to  ratify, 
although  Germany,  Austria,  and  Russia  did  ratify. 


28      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

Nobody  to  Fight ;  Nobody  to  Protest  Against 

To  THE  Editor  of  The  Sun — Sir:  After  reading  your  lead- 
ing editorial  article  to-day,  based  on  Judge  Holt's  remarks  as 
to  the  attitude  which  the  United  States  should  take  because  of 
the  violation  by  a  belligerent  of  the  territory  of  a  neutral,  it 
has  occurred  to  me  that  there  is  one  considerable  difficulty  which 
neither  you  nor  Judge  Holt  mentioned. 

Against  whom  should  the  United  States  protest  or  fight? 
Against  Japan  and  England  for  their  violation  of  the  unques- 
tioned neutraHty  of  China,  or  against  England  for  her  alleged 
violation  of  Switzerland  by  her  airships  and  of  neutral  waters 
by  her  cruisers,  or  against  Germany  for  her  invasion  of  Belgium, 
or  against  all  three? 

Would  it  not  be  rather  difficult,  as  well  as  practically  in- 
effective, for  the  United  States  to  fight  against  nations  actually 
engaged  in  fighting  each  other?  If  the  idea  should  be  to  fight 
one  side  until  it  should  be  beaten  and  then  turn  and  fight  the 
other  side,  why  should  we  commence  with  Germany  rather  than 
with  England  and  Japan?  Their  disregard  of  China's  neutrality 
was  without  the  excuse  of  the  belief  of  necessity,  and  was  directed 
against  a  country  which  has  not  even  been  accused  of  secretly 
intriguing  with  their  enemies. 

The  fact  that  the  Belgians  have  suffered  terribly,  while  the 
Chinese  have  not,  may  have  been  due  to  errors  of  judgment  by 
the  Belgians  themselves,  and  in  any  event  does  not  affect  the 
moral  issues  or  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  United  States. 

Henry  Bennett  Leary. 

New  York,  November  24,  19 14. 


As  already  stated,  the  general  suspension  of  responsibility 
to  observe  the  rules  of  war  embodied  in  the  several  Conventions 
adopted  at  The  Hague,  and  rendered  inoperative  in  the  present 
conflict  by  the  failure  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  present  belliger- 
ents to  ratify,  makes  it  idle  to  discuss  the  extent  to  which  this 
Government  ought  to  go  in  another  case  where  the  compact  was 
operative. 


Not  Germany's  Fault  That  the  Conventions  Are  Inoperative 

To  THE  Editor  of  The  Sun  —  Sir:  Will  somebody  please 
tell  me  why  England,  which  is  fighting  for  the  protection  of 
neutral  Belgium,  did  not  ratify  The  Hague  Convention  V,  ''the 
territory  of  neutral  Powers  is  inviolable,"  etc.,  and  why  the 
German  "Huns"  did  sign  it? 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR       29 

Will  you  please  tell  me  why  England,  which  is  fighting  for 
ci\dUzation,  humanity,  etc.,  did  not  ratify  The  Hague  Con- 
ventions VIII,  IX,  X,  XI  and  XIII,  and  why  the  German 
barbarians  did? 

Would  it  not  have  been  human  and  civilized  if  England  had 
then  acted  in  these  matters  by  deeds  instead  of  hot  air? 

Frederick  Peters. 

New  York,  November  25,  1914. 


We  take  it  that  Mr.  Peters  will  be  satisfied  to  have  his  ques- 
tions printed,  even  if  nobody  attempts  to  answer  them.  It  is 
only  fair  to  say  that  of  the  eight  principal  conventions,  to  the 
present  status  of  which  The  Sun  has  called  attention,  seven  were 
ratified  by  Germany,  and  likewise  by  Austria.  The  eight  con- 
ventions fail  in  the  present  war  through  the  circumstance  of 
non-ratification  by  France  in  all  eight  cases,  by  Great  Britain 
in  four  cases,  and  by  Russia  in  two  cases.  The  one  convention 
which  Germany  did  not  ratify  is  that  relating  to  the  discharge 
of  projectiles  and  explosives  from  balloons.  This  failed  of  rati- 
fication by  France  and  Russia,  as  well  as  by  Germany  and  her 
ally  Austria. 

We  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  number  of  other  interesting 
communications  on  this  highly  important  and  decidedly  en- 
lightening subject.  These  letters  either  closely  parallel  those 
printed  above  or,  on  account  of  their  length,  must  await  the 
opportunity  of  space  and  special  attention. 


THE   CONTRIBUTION   LEVIED  AGAINST 
BRUSSELS 

{From  "  German  *  Atrocities  '  and  International  Law."  By  James  G.  McDonald, 
Assistant  Professor  of  European  History  in  Indiana  University.  Pub- 
lished by  the  Germanistic  Society  of  Chicago.) 

Very  important  is  the  charge  of  illegally  levying  vast  assess- 
ments against  the  city  of  Brussels  and  the  province  of  Brabant. 
The  amounts,  $40,000,000  and  $90,000,000,  respectively,  are 
named,  but  practically  nothing  has  been  given  as  to  the  exact 
terms  of  assessment  or  collection.  The  second  assessment  has 
been  denied.  The  first  has  been  admitted,  though  the  exact 
amount,  it  is  said,  has  not  yet  been  fixed. 

The  international  law  of  such  "contributions"  was  defined 
in  1907  by  The  Hague  Convention,  regulating  the  "Laws  and 
Customs  of  War  on  Land,"  as  follows: 

Article  49.  "  If,  besides  the  taxes  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding article,  the  occupant  levies  other  money  contributions 
in  the  occupied  territory,  this  can  only  be  for  military  pur- 
poses or  the  administration  of  such  territory." 

Article  51.  "No  contribution  shall  be  collected  except 
under  a  written  order  and  on  the  responsibility  of  the  Com- 
mander in  Chief.  The  levy  shall  only  take  place,  as  far  as 
possible,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  in  existence  and  the 
assessment  in  force  for  taxes.  For  every  contribution  a  receipt 
shall  be  given  to  the  payer." 

These  articles  seek  to  limit  the  amount  of  "contributions"  to 
what  is  needed  within  the  territory  actually  occupied,  either  for 
miHtary  necessities  or  for  administrative  purposes.  Contribu- 
tions so  limited  are  undoubtedly  legal. 

This  war-right  has  been  held  "to  be  peculiarly  unjust  and 
wanting  in  that  spirit  of  sympathetic  concern  for  national  feeling, 
which  informs  the  modern  usages  of  war  so  largely."  It  is  true 
that  "it  seems  cruel"  to  allow  the  Germans  occupying  Belgium 
to  make  Belgians  contribute  to  the  support  of  that  army  which 
is  holding  them  in  subjection.    It  is  true  that  "contributions" 

.30 


CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR      31 

are  "a  relic  of  the  vested  rights  which  an  invader  once  possessed 
to  money,  goods,  and  labor  of  the  people  he  had  temporarily 
conquered."    But  is  war  itself  not  a  relic  of  barbarism? 

In  reality,  "contributions,"  if  not  extortionate,  and  if  levied 
in  lieu  of  requisitions  (demands  for  suppHes,  e.g.,  horses,  cattle, 
etc.),  and  to  supplement  or  substitute  for  the  regular  taxes,  may 
be  the  most  hmnane  method  of  supporting  a  conquering  army 
in  an  enemy  country.  A  concrete  case,  cited  by  a  German  repre- 
sentative at  the  international  conference  at  Brussels  in  1874,  will 
illustrate  how  "contributions"  may  be  a  valuable  method  of 
equalizing  a  heavy  miUtary  burden:  "An  army  arrives  at  a  rich 
town,  and  demands  a  certain  number  of  oxen  for  its  subsistence. 
The  town  rephes  that  it  has  none.  The  army  would  be  compelled 
in  that  case  to  apply  to  villages,  wliich  are  frequently  poor,  where 
it  would  seize  what  it  is  in  want  of.  This  would  be  a  flagrant 
injustice.  The  poor  would  pay  for  the  rich.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  other  expedient  but  to  admit  an  equivalent  in  cash.  This  is 
likewise  the  mode  which  the  inhabitants  prefer.  Moreover,  it 
cannot  be  admitted  that  a  town  which  is  unable  to  pay  in  kind 
shall  be  exempted  from  pa3dng  in  money." 

The  last  edition  of  the  British  Field  Service  Regulations  echoes 
this  same  defense,  when  it  authorizes  commanders  to  raise  '^con- 
tributions in  order  to  distribute  the  burden  of  levying  the  supplies 
more  evenly  over  the  whole  population,"  for  otherwise  it  is  only 
the  inhabitants  immediately  or  near  the  line  of  march  who  feel 
it.  "By  levying  contribution,"  this  article  continues,  "in  large 
towns,  which  are  principal  administrative  centers  or  districts, 
and,  by  expending  the  sums  so  obtained  in  the  purchase  of  sup- 
pHes in  outlying  districts,  the  latter  may  be  made  to  bear  their 
share  as  well." 

"Contributions,"  then,  are  normally  legal,  as  a  measure  of 
necessity  to  meet  administrative  or  military  needs  within  an 
occupied  territory.  If  levied  as  a  supplement  to  or  as  a  substitute 
for  other  and  sometimes  more  onerous  means  of  support  these 
money  assessments  are  perfectly  legal.  One  authority  on  inter- 
national law  has  argued  that  these  levies  were  illegal  because, 
"according  to  The  Hague  rules,  it  is  forbidden  to  penalize  by 
pecuniary  indemnity  or  personal  punishment  any  general  body 
of  people  for  violation  of  the  laws  of  war  by  a  few.  So  that  even 
if  the  Belgians  had  violated  the  rules  of  war,  unless  you  can  show 


32      CURRENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  THE  WAR 

that  the  entire  population  of  Brussels  was,  as  a  body,  responsible, 
it  is  illegal  to  levy  a  heavy  fine  upon  them." 

This  is  true.  But  the  German  military  officers  seem  not  to  have 
levied  a  fine  upon  Brussels.  Rather  they  seem  to  have  imposed  these 
levies,  "iji  place  of  taxes,"  and  ''in  place  of  requisitions  in  kind." 
Hence  their  sy stein  of  "contributions"  may  prove  to  be  highly  com- 
mendable. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LI 


AA      000  284 


